ballaughbiker

I have a dual rate smart meter on the 'other side'. I recently noticed that is had updated its software and now there were now 9 available tariff settings rather than the original two. Just sayin' ..

Although this app is being blocked by Amazon not UKTV play, it looks like the last app update facilitated the block. I have found a non-vpn way around it now ..

Yes but other apps are upset by a vpn

Domicilium

UK TV play app on my Firestick stopped working and Amazon tech have told me that they are blocking access to this app due to the IOM not being part of the UK. As it used to work and their android app still works on my mobile, the first question might be : 1) Is anyone else suffering the same geoblock on a Firestick ?

I have more than a passing interest in this early detection of prostate ca. I have one good friend terminally ill with it at the moment (stage 4 on diagnosis) and another who had a robotic radical prostatecetomy a year ago, another who has just started urology surgery training and last but not least, I am of that age. I note that the Patient Access app says PSA 0 - 5.4 ng/mL is normal but the fella who suffered the 'radical' had PSA at the top end of that range yet (obviously) had significant disease.

True if you only consider the topical effects of the fluoridated water. What about the systemic effects over a decade or three ?

Why ?

That would be a perversion ...

British .. Dental .. Association 😉 I recall they boycotted the gov regarding job adverts following a very questionable dismisssal of a previous incumbent who was one of their members. This mistreatment of clinicians is hardly new.

I recall the BDA did just that in the late 80s/early 90s due to the alleged despicable treatment of one of their members here.

It's refreshing that legal costs have been awarded. From my experience, should anyone legally or professionally decide to take on 'the blob', they have to fight it funded out of their own pocket and at their own financial and professional risk yet if 'the blob' fights back, their employees' personal financial and professional risk is near zero. Some might conclude that out of balance seesaw is conveniently inhibitive to even start a case ..

All the details below is my opinion based on facts and evidence I personally hold. Without commenting on the specifics of any particular case, I think the underlying continuing problem is one of inept arrogance of government officials and managers promoted WAY beyond their abilities. Add this to the myopic "This is our island, we're in charge and we'll do want we want" attitude and you have an explosive mix. Ok, it's a bit more complex than that but most will recognise the paraphrase in quote marks. Of course it all goes wrong when they choose an inconvenient but capable victim and it's high time it stopped for good. The Manx taxpayers end up making amends but the difference here is it's out in the open (so much so, it makes the national BBC news). Twice in the last 30+ years, I have been personally involved in 2 other cases of very unfair treatment of most able and decent professionals where the significant settlements were kept quiet. Both totally unecessary cases were brought about by inept 'control freak' managers promoted way beyond their skill set, aided and abetted by numpty government officials. The details of the more recent case a few years ago were imo so vile, I believe they would also made the national news had they been made public (by tribunal) at the time instead of legally gagging all concerned. I love this place and very rarely criticise it, but sometimes our officials do such daft things, which people elsewhere cannot understand, that makes us look ridiculous to the wider world. If it takes £3M+ to do stop these sorts of cases, so be it. The ultimate victims are always the Manx residents. Not only do they lose quality professionals, these cases inhibit others from applying and we all end up paying both in lost ability and financially. Edit for spelling/word order

Topic exhumation from 2008 ish ? This has been done to death. I guess saveourwater will be along in a minute (ok at sunset then as long as there's no garlic around) with multiple wild fluoride conspiracy theories and horror stories supported by references from agenda driven nutty professors and other assorted ne're-do-wells .. Even if one just try to help and quote links to respected peer-reviewed sources, they will just try to silence you with sealioning, gish galloping and even unpleasant PMs. I really can't be assed to repeat it all except to say. It works It takes a minimum of a decade to show a real benefit It's relatively cheap (but not sure about that 'here') There are plenty of other ways to deliver it For full effect, it needs to be ingested before birth It is harmless a 1ppm (near enough 1mg / litre) It has been present in some area's drinking water since time was with no demonstrable ill effects at 1ppm I don't think it should be added to the island's water (although I wouldn't have any issue if it was in my water) Rather than get involved in petty squabbles, I'm going for a pint

I know Dennis Skinner and have dealt with him in business. Whilst our politics differ, I can tell you he's a very principled man and as 'straight as a die' and in his time as MP for Bolsover, represented his constituents well for just short of 50 years until he lost his red wall seat in 2019. In fairness though, he was well past his best anyway due to his age. I haven't met 30p but I do know a few that have had dealings with him and they mostly confirm he is a very different MP and personality to Skinner and not in a good way. A quick glace at their MP expense claims and parliamentary voting records is quite revealing considering they are from the same area and background.

It is indeed a cancel/refund/rebook but hardly for the usual reasons. The pax has done absolutely nothing wrong, apart from in the SP's eyes, for stupidly booking on what later turned out to be a rail strike day stopping onward travel. Yes, EZY would have to charge for entirely different reasons as previously discussed. None of this has any relevance to the unique situation where a SP foot pax is forced to change a booking due to a rail strike when they still really want to travel on the booked day. The impact of this scenario on that sailing's profitability is negligible. All that's happened is that pax will see this as an unfair 40+% fine and will go on social media to whinge about the IOM (which is how I know about it) rather than the SP. That does nobody here any good, quite the reverse. Sea rail / discounted rail fare differential can very easily exceed the cost of sea part of the fare and it seems nearly as daft to say 'it's your fault for not getting our sea rail' as it would be to say 'claim on your travel insurance.'

Nope. You are stretching any reasonable and conventional definition of 'ticket flexibility' so far, it no longer follow Hooke's law. The passenger still wanted to travel on the booked day so didn't reasonably believe they require any flexibility until .. actions by a third party (way after the ticket had been booked) precluded onward travel that day. The rail company changed the ticket to the following day without charge. It wasn't a ticket for another train that day (which could be termed ticket flexibility). There were no other trains. They were on strike. Regarding paying an ('insurance') premium to the carrier 'just in case' that carrier can find any reason to charge you more for making a change that you actually didn't want to do, their premium can significantly exceed the whole ferry fare. Just have a think about that for a minute.😉

Point previously made and answered earlier.

Wouldn't that be seen by some as coercion by the carrier to 'insure' (sometimes at significant extra cost) against their own extra charges ?

I first became interested in what the previous incarnations of this service were capable of, as employers, back in the late 80s. Since then they have, to my knowledge, dismissed two most decent and very able clinicians, both of whom were known to me both personally and professionally. Both ended up with very significant settlements, so there can be no question of employer culpability, yet the taxpayer who ultimately funds this gets to hear nothing due to 'gagging clauses'. I have therefore watched this case with more than average interest... In both previous cases, the base issue was imo vindictive and vexatious treatment by line managers promoted way beyond their abilities. They were aided and abetted by numpty civil servants (up to CEO level and maybe ministerial level) who understood next to nothing of the professional nuances involved. In one case, the imo completely innocent defendant was forced to undergo repeated off island medical investigations, clearly to 'get the right answer' (which actually ended up disproving the employer suspicion). The line manager concerned was proven to have had 'previous' for defective management yet allowed to continue in post even after this settlement. Given the detailed and verifiable knowledge I have of one of these cases, nothing would surprise me now. I was happy at the time that neither clinician had to undergo tribunal facing a QC (as it was then) but on reflection, the public would have got to know how badly 'we' appear to sometimes treat decent employees.

Fair point but there is very good reason for airlines to do this. There is often a very small margin between the flight being profitable or hugely loss making and pax dicking them about, especially at the last minute, has to be effectively controlled. There are also opportunities for the sharper pax to manipulate the fares system without this financial disincentive. Neither of these reasons apply to our SP. IF the required change is clearly beyond control of the pax with a rail strike (as in zero reasonable* alternative for onward travel from Heysham), then the minimal cost to the SP of changing the booking should be waived, to avoid the adverse publicity we just don't need. *I wonder how much a taxi is from Heysham to Edale ....

Read on another forum (twitter) that someone here on holiday had to change their foot pax return due to a rail strike day being called since their booking. They tried to find alternative bus travel from Heysham to a remote bit of the Peak District (Edale), which proved impossible at a weekend, so were forced to change their booking to a day earlier. This caused a 43% increase in their fare which they pleaded to no effect. Paraphrasing the SP (whom I normally defend) "Read the t&cs to which you agreed. A rail strike is not our fault and you need to claim our rebooking change charge from the rail companies". They appealed in writing which was also rejected. This is a very poor look for what's left of our tourism. Sure, if people just 'change their minds', that is their choice and option and an extra charge is appropriate, but when a national rail strike forces the change ? C'mon SP. FFS .... ! Please realise that social media can be a powerful positive or negative force depending on your attitude to customer service.

Indeed, it was way over the top as was accessing private property "just to check" those subject to quarantine were actually at home with zero indication whatsoever that they had not been.

We only know about this case because it went to tribunal. One wonders how many cases get 'settled' to avoid both public and off-island scrutiny. I know of two cases over the last 30+ years where decent, ethical, able and hardworking clinicians were treated very badly indeed by the employer both due to, imo, middle managers with way too much executive power linked to too little managerial experience. It is also my opinion that one of these cases involved a degree of victimisation and vexatious behavior by the clinical middle manager involved who had a known departmental track record of managerial concerns going back years. I understand that both cases resulted in significant settlements at public expense to (one assumes) avoid tribunal where the Manx public (and UK media) would have been shocked at how one of these clinicians in particularly was treated during the due process.

I'm not commenting on this judgement but I hear the employer has 'previous.' I remember back in the late 80s or maybe 1990, a para-medical professional's union placed an advert in a national professional journal warning potential applicants about a post that had become vacant here due to the dismissal of the previous incumbent. The ad encouraged potential applicants to phone this union for a briefing before applying and I was tasked with finding out what it was about. Apparently this highly paid and very well respected professionally registered employee had been allegedly unfairly dismissed and that the offending line manager (also registered with their appropriate council) was still in post. I understand that a significant settlement was eventually made to the dismissed employee which was kept from the public. I know of at least one more case (remarkably for same post but different line manager this time) where a significant secret payout was made to the professional to avoid, I assume, having to go to tribunal. NB .. again this was kept from the public.